The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right

In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.

So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.

As many legal scholars predicted, the Supeme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.

Since Heller, its Gun Control 60, Individual Right 0.

Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.

About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.

The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.

"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."

But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful--a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.

Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.

Comments

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Once more into the breach...Since, for strange-logic purposes, nukes have been deployed, let me say this about that. If God came to Earth, His first question might be, "SO, WHERE IS MY FAVORITE ATOM?", to which we would reply, "Oh, well... I think we blew that one up over Japan."
Although nukes were an obvious evolution, they are also Man's biggest mistake. Man learned to split the atom, but now, he can't put it back together. Like a kid with his father's watch.
What nuke comments have to do with the armed America debate, I don't know, unless you have an ICBM in your garage.
I am pro-gun, anti-unnecessary-war (or violence in general), pro-education, anti-too-much-power-invested-in governmental-institutions...
Man has never developed weapons he did not eventually use, and I fear the nuclear arsenal will prove no different.

[LtBromhead]

Perhaps Adam, and some of the rest of you, need to learn what the Founding Fathers themselves had to say about the individual right to own firearms. Hint: There's nothing "new" about the 2nd Amendment, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm

Now, if any of you can show me a quote from a Founder, stating that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right only, I'll eat my Akubra 'Banjo Patterson'. It's a big hat.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Let's face facts. The human animal is, and has been, a creature with great survival instincts. Even the most pacifist among us is capable of extreme actions when cornered. We are, at our core, a violent element in Nature. This is part of our Biblical "dominion over..." everything else. That we mostly hold the killer in check speaks well of our desire for community and civilization. But make no mistake; the jungle is just an insult, a roadrage, an empty belly away. Guns are an extention of our need to throw a rock further then our opponent, or our prey. That's all they do; they throw a rock. The rock, nor the sling throwing it is not the problem. The problem is the intent of the predator behind the rock.
I have guns, respect the power of, do not fear, and know how to use them. To those who don't know me, but fear my (armed) potential, when you and your family are confronted by those more predatory than you or I, you will be glad I was around.

[USMC9298]

I own guns. I find the idea of not owning firearms anathema to who I am. Owning a firearm is a responsibility, it is not a privilege. It angers me when I see people suggesting they be banned. It angers me equally when I see people arguing against gun control. In a society as large as ours gun control is a necessary tool for determining who is and who is not capable of dealing with the responsibility inherent in utilizing your 2nd amendment rights. Gun control laws as they exist in most areas of the country are too lax in their employment. I have never had problems with concealed carry permits, or even open carry laws, the problem lies in the steps required for the determination of whether someone is or is not responsible. A three day waiting period is too short for this determination. Criminal records, health records (mental), and certification should all be required. A potential gun owner should have to go to a gun safety course, gun handling course, and finally have a certain number of hours at a firing range before receiving their license. They should also be required to requalify every four years, much like a driving license. If you are unwilling to deal with these steps, you are probably the kind of person who should not be packing heat anyway.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

US Army vet. I couldn't agree more, Marine. But the problem is not us with our legal, competently-handled weapons, but rather the yahoos who need them as ego enhancement or career advancing tools.

[vespasian1]

And who do you think commits most of the homicides in this country, criminals, or the "yahoos" you mention?

Proficiency with a firearm is not rocket science, or only attainable by those who have served in the military. Get real and dump your overblown esimation of your own ability with a gun, just because you were in the military.

I've never been in the military, and you can bet your ass I'm at least as good a shot as either of you, and WAY better than the average cop.

[drvck70]

All your suggestions are already in place, what more do you want? I'm assuming you are talking about CCW, the problem here is that people don't bother to do the research on what exactly is required to obtain a CCW then spout out all the things that are wrong with the system. I live in the reddest of red states, very gun friendly, to obtain a CCW I had to:
1. Attend a weapons training class by cert firearms instructor with a state trooper present
2. Qualify on semi auto
3. Submit two sets of fingerprints, one for the state police the other for the FBI
4. It took 4.5 months to clear, though the 144.25 check to the state police for me to register a GUARANTEED RIGHT cleared within 1 week

Requirements:

U.S. Citizen
State resident for past 12 months or longer:
At least 21 years old:
Not committed an act of violence in the past 5 years:
Not convicted of a crime of domestic violence:
Not a convicted felon ever:
Not a fugitive from justice:
Be able to pass a criminal background check:
Not a chronically and habitual user of alcohol or controlled substances:
Not been adjudicated mentally incompetent:
Never voluntary or involuntary committed to a mental facility:
Willing to complete the prescribed course of instruction in the classroom and on the range:
Willing to sign a digital photo release:
Willing to submit finger prints:

[USMC9298]

Most states don't even come close to those requirements, and no state I know of requires periodic re-certification. Also I for one don't have a problem waiting to exercise my guaranteed right if it keeps firearms out of the hands of convicted felons, individuals with mental issues, violent alcoholics, or in general your typical yahoo. Which state do you live in, because it sounds like they come close to doing it right.

[ChristopherTracy]

I see both sides to this "gun control" argument. On the one hand, what really annoys me is this ridiculous desire to blame the object - a gun, not the person who commits the crime. Guns are harmless. Guns do not kill people. People kill people and more times than not in the US they use a gun to do so. Even if we banned all guns, threw them all away, PEOPLE WILL STILL KILL PEOPLE! They will just use knives, bats, ropes, extension cords, pillows, water, poison, cars, trains, planes, swords, acid, gravity, sabotage, and any blunt or sharp object to kill. So what are we going to do? Ban all these items too?

With that said, this is a public safety issue. The objective of gun control laws isn't to punish those who are responsible in carrying them, but to prevent the irresponsible from getting their hands on what I call "easy kill" weapons. Every Virginia Tech or Columbine incident shows us that our current methods aren't working.

I think it is safe to say, if you are a gun toting, 2nd Amendment activist and fear the government will take your precious arms away - then come up with a solution to keep irresponsible people - the mentally ill for example - from obtaining and using guns or any other type of weapon. For if you do not, you will continue to be seen as an obstructionist and your rights to bear arms will ALWAYS be threatened.

[vespasian1]

You should spend some time on Paul Helmke's blog, here on Huffpo, because every issue you mention has been covered there ad nauseum.

"With that said, this is a public safety issue. The objective of gun control laws isn't to punish those who are responsible in carrying them, but to prevent the irresponsible from getting their hands on what I call "easy kill" weapons."

But that is precisely who IS being punished. Criminals don't obtain guns through legal channels as a rule, hence, gun laws mean nothing to them.

If someone has been found by a judge to be mentally defective, they are forbidden by law from owning a firearm (like Cho of VA Tech). He lied on his application, and his mental health record slipped through the cracks. I believe that possibility has been corrected in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And, if someone else had been carrying a weapon, in defiance of VA law, the death toll at VA Tech would likely have been less.

[twogunmojo]

all praise to the purple one!!!

[Nooneyouknow]

I'll be happy to give up my Second Amendment rights--as soon as there are no more people willing to break laws and hurt people to get what they want.
In the meantime, I'm curious to know how this ruling might affect NYC's insanely restrictive gun laws: Only cops, the rich, the famous and the connected get carry permits. Store owners, women in bad neighborhoods, people wanting to protect against break-ins, muggings and assaults, you're on your own. As the economy gets worse, the crime rate will rise, and so will the number of victims who couldn't protect themselves.

[mike102]

You're right, and that's called 'elitism'. Some of the most vocal antigun spokesman are among them. They either have guns themselves, employ armed body guards, or both. Among these are Rosie O' Donnell, Jesse Jackson, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Chuck Schumer, just to name a few.

As a matter of fact, by her own admission, on her own blog, Rosie admitted hiring armed body guards because she "spoke out against the NRA", citing her case as 'special'. I saw this myself.

What inflammatory nonsense. I am pretty sure the NRA is not hiring hit squads to go after people who disagree with them. These guards even accompanied her children to school, until the school found out. Then Rosie expressed concern that these imaginary bad guys would find out, and come after her kids at school.

My question to Rosie would be "Do you still believe in 'Gun Free School Zones', or is that just for other peoples' kids?

[thenemo1]

To my anti gun
I must laugh after decades of people all around me talk of how guns have to be taken away from people. Yet the same people put their own security to a person that makes 2.00 to 4.00 an hour above min. wage.
People that are controlled by fear and the feeling of being helpless even fear taking care of them selves and their families. They'd trust someone that they wouldn't let take care of their pet be in charge of their security.
I'll neverstand mindset of cowardly people.
When push comes to shove don't expect a dozen or two patrol cars with 2 people to save your butt.

How close we came last fall if the florida and texas oil facilities were knocked out it would not have been 4.99 a gallon gas it would have been 9.00 then your looking at masses taking what they need and can't afford just to survive.
Now how about oil yeah we have a oversupply now but things may change and with no petro flow.
Your supermarket will be empty in three days.
You'll be happy to be able to protect your family if your a man?
We live in questionable times with questionable leaders that have left us open to danger beyound the twin towers.
No transportation of food medicine and emergency units.
Hold onto your guns hope you never need to use them but don't expect others to save your rear end.

[MajorKong]

I'm more worried about what's going to happen when my job goes away and the house gets foreclosed and the authorities come to put me out on the street. I'll lose everything I own far more efficiently than any burglar could have done.

In this economy I'd say that's a much greater threat than your "Mad Max" scenario and my guns aren't going to help much when it comes to pass.

[Berettasskeeter]

You're really hooked on that theme! Are you in danger of losing your job? Or is it just a straw-man that you like to throw out whenever possible?
Semper fi

[lynjs]

The one argument that I never hear when it comes to gun control is the problem that guns have caused on communities as a whole, particularly those that people of color inhabit.

If the people for gunrights whom I'm not against having a gun could see and live the ugly side of it, they'd take a step back.

Ducking and dodging gunfire just to get to and from work, school or to the store. Sleeping on the floor or in the bathtub to keep from being shot because you don't know when a shootout will occur. People not able to sat on their own front porches. Kids, not even able to go outside to play. Policemen working overtime putting themselves on the line trying to keep a bad situation from becoming worse. Not a wonderful feeling or a wonderful way to live one's life.

[mike102]

First of all, Adam is wrong. There are quotes from EVERY founding father, indicating their belief in the individual right to own firearms, and these are the people who wrote the Constitution.

"Ducking and dodging gunfire just to get to and from work, school or to the store. Sleeping on the floor or in the bathtub to keep from being shot because you don't know when a shootout will occur."

Good point. Most of the homicides in this country are criminal on criminal, occur in the inner city, and are the result of drug/gang activity. These people do not purchase their guns legally, so gun laws do not affect them.

And 40 years of gun control have done nothing to prevent it. Crime in this country rose 313% from 1960-2005, according to FBI Uniform Crime Report.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Also, violent crime in the 'gun free' Utopia of the UK skyrocketed the minute they banned guns in 1997. This link is to a report from the Austrailian Dept. of Justice. See graph at bottom of page. It's actually declined in the US.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html

DC had a gun ban starting in 1976, and has consistently had one of the highest homocide rates in the US. Chicago banned guns in 1985, and they aren't doing much better.

[MajorKong]

Atlanta, Memphis and Charlotte have higher violent crime rates than Chicago.

[benEzra]

Most of those communities already have the lowest rates of lawful gun ownership in the nation, and in some of those jurisdictions, the rate of lawful gun ownership is near zero.

Chicago is a case in point. It is very, very difficult for someone in Chicago to legally own a handgun. Yet Chicago has one of the highest rates of handgun murder in the nation. The reason the legal ownership rate has so little to do with it is that ~80% of shooters and 50% of victims in Chicago murders have prior criminal records, and laws restricting lawful ownership don't disarm those people any more than the laws banning lawful use of cocaine, heroin, and cannabis prevent them from getting and using drugs.

And, as usual, the response of the authoritarians is to further clamp down on the lawful and nonviolent instead of the criminals. Illinois is currently trying to outlaw the most popular target rifles and defensive carbines in the state, even though only 4 of 463 murders last year (0.86%) involved ANY type of rifle.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

[billw8017]

Guns exist to kill people. Many who want guns oppose abortion, saying life begins at conception. Apparently, it ends at birth except you give the born a chance to grow a little and make it more sporting.

[Nooneyouknow]

Yes, many guns do exist to kill, or at least wound, people. Perhaps you've noticed that there are a lot of very bad people in the world.

[omega101]

....Oh, Government, please protect us from ourselfs, we're not worthy! we're not worthy!...Paleeese, If I have ever been convinced of anything in life, it is that now, unlike any time I can remember as an American, I need to be armed to the teeth to protect myself from the Government and whatever else may come down the pike in the coming year or two...........yeah, yeah, ...abortion, gun control, gay rights, God, Islam...............blah,blah,blah, ......do yourselfs a favor, buy a gun or two, stock your house with some food and water to prepare, and if the worse dosn't come to pass you can always give the food to the food pantry......peace out

[mike102]

Perhaps this person is unaware that the Supreme Court ruled that the police are under no legal obligation to protect individuals.

[benEzra]

I'm pro-choice, pro-civil-unions, pro-religious-freedom for all religions, and pro-social-safety-nets. I'm also one of those eeee-villlll "assault weapon" owners that the repubs at the Brady Campaign are always warning you about.

Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, dude. You can drop the gun owner = social conservative stereotyping, OK?

[mike102]

About half of the 80,000,000 law abiding gun owners in the US are liberal leaning democrats, or idependents, who are pro-choice.

Maybe you should stop drinking the anti-rights Kool Aid, and do a little research of your own.

[ChimpNchief]

"If all the gun owners would just shoot themselves, there wouldn't be a problem."

George Harrison quote.

[Nooneyouknow]

Except from the knife owners, the club owners, the axe owners, the fanatics, the politicians, and all the bad people out there who might be bigger, sneakier, or more numerous or organized than you.

[glockman]

George Harrison. Now there's a real sage if I ever heard one...

[THINKB4USPEAK]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. No problem, except that last guy who, seeing all the others gone, realizes there is no deterent to his dominence.

[nolabels]

Do we seriously have a bunch of people posting on this site advocating that we prepare to violently overthrow our government? Presumably, these are not the liberals who have thought that the last 30 years of government in this country have brought us to the brink of ruin but the people who elected those who have delivered us this tragic course. Seriously? What are we talking about here?

[twogunmojo]

i guess you think that iraqis are the only ones that know how to make ieds...there are 80 million gun owners in the u.s...and tons of gunpowder in private hands...some of us like to reload our own cartridges so we understand the explosive properties that we deal with...and in the event that revolution does occur many people who hate guns will still help out...with computer hacking...with engineering of ambushes...with manufacturing...perhaps you should ask the british about the ira...or the french about the algerians...or the soviets about the afgans...there are many liberals who will join in the fight because they actually believe in freedom...just as there are many republicans who will side with the government...

[ScottM1A]

Well in part we are talking about the founding fathers intent when they ratified the 2nd amendment. In their own words it was to insure that if government got out of control we would have the means to take it back. On the compromise topic.
I am curious why the 2nd amendment is the only constitutional right that is different based on location and apparently income. DC is a perfect example, if you are poor the new registration scheme is onerous and expensive, as it involves several trips to the police station and a couple to gun stores in VA, if you are a congress critter or lobbiest it's just time consuming.
One of the things not mentioned often about gun control laws is they impact the poor and minorities much harder than the upper class. Most laws prohibiting concealed carry were aimed at and enforced against southern blacks. The Sullivan law in New York was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. After the Black Panthers marched in California Reagan happily signed a law preventing them and everyone else from carrying a firearm.
In my opinion those who would restrict my 2A rights are no different the the KKK of the south, a bunch of racists.

[vespasian1]

We're talking aboyut the right to overthrow a tyrannical, illegal government that usurps power.. No one is talking about overthrowing the Bush administration, or Obama's.

[HighPlainsJoker]

Do you seriously think you can overthrow a tyrannical govt with hand guns? Why can't I have an M1A1 tank, a bazooka, M16 fighter? That's what we would need, now that Bush has overturned Posse Comitatis.

Try to distinguish between rifles and hand guns. Rifles might be somewhat effective for tyrannical govts, and should not be limited for hunters. Handguns on the other hand are much more often used for nefarious purposes, and I believe should be more restricted.

[cylindar]

The problem with gun control, and it is very real is that criminals do buy guns on the black market. They usually do not buy them from gun stores in straw actions. but their are many grey areas that need to be enforced. Ask any legislator why they do not close the gap when it comes to individual on individual transactions. IE: if I own a firearm and put an ad in the newspaper and sell it to someone with no background check it is legal. This is a gap which lawmakers for some strange reason have failed to close. We need to ask why this obvious problem has not been attended to. Also I think gun ownership is a good thing because there are a lot of people out there who are bigger and meaner and just plain no damn good and to tell you the truth I feel better with an equalizer on my side. I don't live in Mr. Rodgers neighborhood.

[billw8017]

What a comfort it must be to you when you see kids sitting on a step and playfully pointing a gun at passers by. You know their house is protected.

[mike102]

And where have you seen this?

[WindmillSlayer]

And you see that exactly how often?

[HisXLNC]

The reason they don't close the gap is because it would make it illegal to not only sell a used gun, but even giving a gun to a family member would be against the law.

If they want to close the gap, they need to do it the right way: Allow private parties access to the NICS system so individuals can do background checks. However, they hesitate doing this because privacy advocates would scream bloody murder because it would open the door for all sorts of discrimination. Imagine being turned down for a promotion at your job because your employer ran a NICS check, saw that you were prohibited from owning a firearm, and decided you weren't trustworthy enough.

[twogunmojo]

and i quote.."Since Heller, its Gun Control 60, Individual Right 0"...i guess the fact that new orleans had to return all the guns they confiscated illegally doesn't count...and the fact that san francisco was successfully sued over their gun ban law and had to pay attorneys fees to the gun lobby doesn't count as a win either....

[Ohio9]

Don't forget that all of Chicago's suburbs have dropped their handgun bans rather then defend them in court. And Chicago is well on their way to losing theirs. In addition D. C. agreed to drop their semi-auto gun ban and absurdly restrictive "safe storage" requirements.

If this is supposed to be defeat, I'll gladly accept it.

[Scorpion]

I will not feel completely safe until I own my own personal nuclear weapon. It's my 2nd Amendment right.

[benEzra]

You must be reading a different 2nd Amendment. The 2ndA protects arms that can be kept and borne, i.e. small arms, not crew-served weapons (like howitzers) or crew-served ordnance (like nukes).

If you honestly cannot tell the difference between non-automatic civilian small arms and thermonuclear weapons, I don't know what to say. But the line between small arms and nukes is drawn at automatic small arms and over-.50-caliber small arms, which are as tightly controlled in the USA as howitzers and tanks are.

Civilian (NFA Title 1) guns in the USA are limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, with exceptions made for larger-caliber sporting guns (like shotguns and some over-.50-caliber hunting rifles).

If you could blow up a city with a shot from a civilian rifle, the nuke analogy might make sense. But since you can't, the Nuclear Bogeyman Argument is a red herring.

[catallaxdeville]

ben -

are you still up from a New Year's party, dude?

Seriously - go get some sleep.

[hipocampelofantocame]

I'm an old soldier. I carry 2 handguns when I may need them. I'm an expert
shot, and owned my first rifle at age twelve. Living in the the country, I shot
often, but did not hunt. Now, at age 74, I walk my dog at 2-4 am in a park.
I've had a few encounters over the last 30 years, and have only had to show a gun twice. I didn't have to fire. I go to to a range periodically, to keep my skills
up and ammo fresh. Do not ever take my guns away from me. hipo

[billstewart]

A decade or two ago, the Libertarian Party was arguing about this issue in one of our endless platform debates. After all, the first gun control in North America was the British government trying to take cannons away from Massachusetts towns. And the government isn't a separate moral agent any more than corporations are - it's a bunch of guys we hire to do stuff, so it doesn't have any rights that the individual citizens don't have. So if you don't have a right to own a nuke, neither does your government, and many of us were just fine with saying that. Surprisingly, we did come to a compromise position that asserted that individuals and governments have the right to own *targetable* weapons, but acknowledged the potential legitimacy of gun control for nukes and other weapons that don't let you control who you're killing.

[vespasian1]

This is not the first time this ridiculous argument has been thrown in our faces.

When was the last time you tried to "bear" a nuclear weapon? Wasn't it awful heavy?

2A refers to personal arms, not crew served weapons, like nukes.

[HighPlainsJoker]

Bush has been scaring us with "nukes in a briefcase". What's the problem? We are talking about overthrowing a tyrannical govt. Need some heft for that, maybe even more than a handgun....

[Chip W]

I can understand wanting to protect the right to have guns. But the absoluteness of the individual-right-over-public-safety position that I see in avid gun-rights proponents makes me wonder about the psychology of their position. Why can there be no compromise, no balance? I suspect there's something other than guns at stake here.

[JudgeMoonbox]

The First Amendment does not justify itself wih talk of society's need for or polite conversation, yet it does not protect those who "falsely shout Fire in a theater and thereby start a panic."

The Second Amendment begins, "A well-regulated militia being essential..." Doesn't that imply that potential crime victims have a right that the "militia" be well-regulated?

[zelda777]

Isn't a "militia" an organized, lawful group? Back in those days, the British Army was occupying the colonies/USA soil. The gun issue wasn't about fighting "crime". Today, we have a military, and local law enforcement which did not exist in those days. Aren't our state National Guards the modern equivalent of a "well regulated militia?"

I'd love to see some facts about the number of cases involving accidental gun fatalities and injuries versus the number of cases where citizens in their homes actually effectively used guns to defend themselves against criminal intruders.

[benEzra]

The right is not conferred upon the militia, but upon the "people" (same "people" as in the rest of the BoR) as a necessary precondition of having a well-trained militia.

The primary meaning of "well regulated" in 1791 was not "subject to lots of rules," but smoothly functioning (i.e. a well-regulated clock), or well-trained, . That meaning still exists today, although it is no longer the primary one.

The Heller decision discussed the text of the amendment very thoroughly; I'd highly recommend reading it yourself, instead of taking other people's word for what it says.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[benEzra]

The "2ndA protects all arms by everyone everywhere" is a straw-man caricature concocted by the gun-ban lobby.

Most gun owners are OK with background checks for purchase; prohibition on possession by criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent; the 74-year-old automatic weapons restricions; the 1986 ban on Kevlar-piercing ammunition; etc. Do we get any credit for it? No, because the gun-ban lobby wants to portray gun owners as zealots and Neandertals.

Gun owners are fighting for the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms without undue hassle.

[RumiSouth]

Let me shine an illuminating light on the gun culture for you: the way gun owners gather at shows to debate the finer variations of AK-47s is exactly the way Trekkies gather to debate the finer points of Starfleet captains.

So imagine if I walked into a sci-fi convention and tried to limit the number of stormtrooper dolls you may own. You'd say it was ridiculous, you'd say it was pointless, and you'd be right, just as most gun laws are utterly ineffective and actually quite silly in execution.

Now take any culture under threat and shut it out of the Democratic Party for long enough. End all rational debate with the members of that culture. It doesn't matter what objects you're banning or controlling; the membership will become reactionary, paranoid, and Republican.

Obama's got the right idea. instead of attacking and villifying guns or gun rights, he acknowledges there MUST be a balance, a sense of proportion (as you do). The only way to disarm the gun culture is to bring them into dialogue.

[NoOneSpecial]

So you're saying that what gun owners really need is to get laid more often, and their passion is the only hobby explicitly protected by the Constitution?

Wow, that IS great insight.

[janye]

Stormtrooper dolls do not kill people. Guns do kill people.

[HisXLNC]

The problem is gun rights proponents have been "compromising" since 1934 and it's always been at their expense. Every piece of federal gun legislation that has come down the pipe has always taken something from gun owners. And gun owners have always peaceably complied.

You can't blame them for refusing to give up anything else. They have very little freedom left and they're holding on to it. Maybe if you give them something in exchange (a true compromise), then you will have balance. Compromise requires both parties to give something. So far, guns owners have been the only ones giving.

Some examples of possible compromises:

1. If you want waiting periods on guns, then repeal the importation ban on non-sporting firearms.
2. If you want mandatory background checks on all gun sales, then allow private party access to the NICS.
3. If you want to ban .50 caliber rifles, then lower the price of the NFA tax stamp from $200 down to $2.

[Berettasskeeter]

How about a couple more compromises:
1. If you want everyone to be certified, then mandate a "must issue" Federal CCW that overrides the States.
2. If you want waiting periods, then make it a one-time deal, issue a license and remove waiting periods for all subsequent purchases.
3. If you want mandatory background checks, repeal the National Firearms Act.
How about those compromises?!
Semper fi

[ScottM1A]

+1

[PavePusher]

Because the definition of "compromise" by the anti-gun lobby usually boils down to "You give up some of your rights now, and we won't demand you give up more... until later".